DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant's communication filed on 02/04/2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Applicant's remarks and amendments, in response to the last Office Action, have been considered with the results that follow:
Claims 1, 3-6, and 11-13 are amended.
Claim 2 is canceled.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are now pending in this application.
The previously raised objection to the specification/title is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to arguments on pages 10-12, “…Office Action asserts that the claim only recites mere instructions to apply an exception, with additional elements comprising only insignificant extra-solution activity. In order to overcome this assertion, claims 1, 11 and 12 have been amended by incorporating the limitations of claim 2…in accordance with the method provided in present claim 1, the scheme of the embodiments of the present disclosure can reduce the correlation between the bits in the index value and the number of algorithm rounds required to ensure the independence of output bits, such that the impact on the stability of the optimal fill rate and the algorithm delay can be reduced…Applicant respectfully submits that Non-final Action is evaluating the claims at "too high a level of generality", and the amended claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the asserted judicial exception…amended claims improve the function of the computer itself… Withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 is respectfully requested”:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments, and notes that the amended language in independent claims incorporating limitations of now canceled claim 2 were previously rejected under 101 and identified as reciting abstract ideas of a mental process and a mathematical concept. Accordingly, as elaborated in the USC 101 section below, amended independent claims 1, 11-13 and their dependent claims are also rejected as reciting abstract ideas of a mental process and a mathematical concept. With respect to the purported technological improvements that the applicant has described for the claimed invention, the examiner notes that the current claim language appears to be at a high level of generality and doesn’t really reflect the asserted improvements (such as, reduce correlation/number of algorithm rounds). The examiner maintains that, the various limitations of the independent claims as currently drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation are processes that covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. The ‘forwarding chip’ language is also recited at a high level of generality, and the specification does not provide any indication that the various steps in the claims are performed by anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component.
As such, the rejection of the claim is maintained.
With respect to arguments on pages 13-14, “Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103”:
The applicants’ arguments are persuasive and the rejection of claims under USC 103 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims 1, 11, 12 and 13,
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The limitations of “acquiring an input parameter used for generating an index value to be filled in a hash table; performing data replication processing on the input parameter to obtain a plurality of input parameters; performing corresponding data mapping processing on each of the plurality of input parameters to obtain a plurality of output variables; and performing data integration processing on the plurality of output variables to obtain the index value; wherein the data mapping processing comprises: non-last round mapping processing comprising the non-last round mapping processing comprises Substitution-box (S-box) processing, bit permutation processing, …, and the last round mapping processing comprising the S-box processing and the bit permutation processing: and wherein the bit permutation processing vanes with different data mapping processing.”, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the ‘forwarding chip’ language, the claim encompasses the user thinking that input should be used to figure out index in a table, then duplicated and duplicated inputs should be mapped to output values. Furthermore, but for the ‘forwarding chip’ language, the claim encompasses the user thinking that multiple outputs should be combined to obtain a final/index value. Finally, but for the ‘forwarding chip’ language, the claim encompasses the user thinking about different approaches or combination of approaches to map and process data during multiple stages (beginning, intermediate, last), including approaches such as combining two sets of numbers, substituting data/numbers, rearranging the order of numbers/bits (0,1) in a string, and varying the techniques based on the specific data mapping need.
The limitations “non-last round mapping processing comprises…matrix multiplication processing”, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationship and hence is an abstract idea because it simply describes a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111USPQ2d at 1721. Thus, the claims recite abstract ideas of a mental process and mathematical concept and are not patent eligible.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of: ‘acquiring an input parameter…’. The acquiring step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The combination of this additional element is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (“computer”). Accordingly, even in combination, i.e., considering the additional element(s) as an ordered combination with the claims as a whole and the abstract idea recited, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, even in combination, i.e., considering the additional element(s) as an ordered combination with the claims as a whole and the abstract idea recited. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element in the claim: ‘acquiring an input parameter…’, is recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and being computer-implemented, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The specification does not provide any indication that such data collection or manipulation is performed by anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the acquiring step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer memo. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 3-10, and 14-20,
Claims 3-6 are dependent on claim 1, and include all the limitations of independent claim 1. Claims 3-6 further recite additional limitations which simply elaborate in the abstract ideas of a mental process and a mathematical concept, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 14-16 are dependent on claim 3, and include all the limitations of dependent claims 3, 2 and independent claim 1. Claims 14-16 further recite additional limitations which simply elaborate in the abstract ideas of a mental process and a mathematical concept, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, claims 3-6, and 14-16 recite abstract ideas of a mental process and a mathematical concept, and are not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of independent claim 1. Claim 7 further recites additional limitations which simply elaborate in the abstract ideas of a mental process and a mathematical concept, and therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 8-9 are dependent on claim 7, and include all the limitations of dependent claim 7 and independent claim 1. Claims 8-9 further recite additional limitations which simply elaborate in the abstract ideas of a mental process and a mathematical concept, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 17 is dependent on claim 8, and include all the limitations of dependent claims 8, 7 and independent claim 1. Claim 17 further recites additional limitations which simply elaborate in the abstract ideas of a mental process and a mathematical concept, and therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 18-19 are dependent on claim 9, and include all the limitations of dependent claims 9, 7 and independent claim 1. Claims 18-19 further recite additional limitations which simply elaborate in the abstract ideas of a mental process and a mathematical concept, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, claims 7-9, and 17-19 recite abstract ideas of a mental process and a mathematical concept, and are not patent eligible.
Claims 10 is dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of independent claim 1. Claim 10 further recites additional limitations which simply elaborate in the abstract ideas of a mental process and a mathematical concept, and therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 10 recites abstract ideas of a mental process and a mathematical concept, and is not patent eligible.
Claims 20 is dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of independent claim 1. Claim 20 further recites additional limitations which simply elaborate in the abstract ideas of a mental process, and therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 20 recites abstract ideas of a mental process and a mathematical concept, and is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANUGEETHA KUNJITHAPATHAM whose telephone number is (408)918-7510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at (571) 270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2165
/ALEKSANDR KERZHNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights